Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Micro 4/3 rangefinder?

Subject: [OM] Re: Micro 4/3 rangefinder?
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:06:22 -0700
Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose thus did this to me:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4s4wejeyS0
>   
Oh my! That is one pissed off Moose!
> Ok, a truce, please?
>   
Of course!

Hugs, then pizza and beer?
> Here's the deal.  Yes, I did go off on my religious argument about modern 
> technology of which I was aiming it not at you but was just a general rant.
>   
I understood that all along. I am, perhaps a bit strongly, suggesting 
that it's not appropriate to present such a rant as a reply to anyone's 
innocent, largely unrelated post. And if it happens to be my post, I 
bite. (Or perhaps kick and stomp, considering the video. Ouch!)

I have no particular objection to such posts on the list. They are more 
photography related than many other subjects. As a matter of freedom of 
expression and religion, Luddism should be able to have its say. I do 
believe, however that they should stand on their own, not as replies to 
other posts.

"I was fondling my (name of old piece photographic equipment here), and 
I think the golden age is past and all is dross." can stand on its own. 
I'm not sure why you find it necessary to demean many relatively 
innocent users of contemporary photo equipment as naifs and fools and 
claim their ways to be evil, but as long as it's purely your rant, I 
don't much mind.

Although I happen to enjoy many more aspects of contemporary 
photographic technology than do you, there are other areas of 
contemporary technology that I eschew so far, although I generally don't 
publicly berate others for using and enjoying them. There are ways to 
couch your opinions in these matters that don't come across as attacks. 
They might even have a greater chance of being read and understood that way.
> Sorry that you interpreted it as anything more than a bad hair day.
>   
I didn't. On the other hand, I'm in some ways and at some times 
imperfect and, mostly fairly, I think, chose your rant to allow me one 
of my own on subjects dear to my own heart.

Interesting allusion. Hair is very interesting symbolically. In myth, 
sacred narrative and the interpretation of dreams, the use of hair as a 
metaphor for those other things that come out of our heads, ideas, is 
common.  This symbolic understanding adds depth to the story of Samson 
and Delilah, for instance. Practical applications are common from today 
back through all recorded history.

Armies have always shaved or almost shaved the heads of recruits, 
something I experienced myself. It is part of the initiation rituals 
designed to break down individual personality and previous loyalties, 
suppress individual ideas, and so on, to prepare the inductee for 
"rebirth" as a full member of a collective organization, with strong 
loyalty to the immediate and larger groups of the military service to 
which he now looks for identity, rather than family and other prior 
associations.

The tonsures of religious organizations are also age-old applications of 
this principle. Full tonsure, a shaved head, is typical of monks of many 
faiths, and simply symbolizes the diminution and sub-ordination of 
individual thought to those of the Divine or no individual thought at 
all. The Roman Tonsure, with the top of the head shaved and the sides 
left full I find particularly interesting. Orders that use it are saying 
to themselves and the world that in matters of dealing with God, they 
subordinate their thoughts to the tenents and laws of their religion. In 
matters of dealing with the laic world, they freely use their own minds 
to the benefit of their order and religion.

So a "bad hair day" may easily be a metaphoric way of talking about a 
day when my ideas have run wild, like unkempt hair, out of control and 
possibly beyond their proper bounds.

> Now to the specifics of rangefinder focus:  I have had several rangefinder 
> focus cameras through the years which have had varying degrees of usabilty:
>   

<snip lengthy descriptions of experiences of several different RF designs.>
>
> Yes, I do lament the passing of an era where the technology really did reach 
> the peak of design. 
As do I sometimes in this and other areas. I always get a twinge when I 
run across my dad's old K&E Log Log Duplex slide rule. It's a beautiful 
piece of design and craftsmanship. I figure I'll have it and my Post 
Versalog until I die, and my kids will wonder why and throw them out. 
Nevertheless, I use a calculator for simple calculations and computer 
apps for complex ones. They are simply faster and more accurate.
> Those buggy-whips were the best ever made. 
Yup, and not (yet?) quite as useless as buggy-whips. Nonetheless, they 
are, in fact, less capable in many ways in enabling me to acquire the 
images I want.
> The OM-4T given to me last year is a perfect example of how a camera design 
> was improved upon to the point where, short of throwing a computer inside, it 
> couldn't be bested without changing the entire form-factor.
>   
Indeed, a great example; I like to think the greatest, of one era in 
camera design. I was using one for some time while you were using a 2s 
and extolling it as the greatest thing going. As I recall, my posts to 
that effect that I thought the OM-4 to be a superior body got short 
shrift. In the technologically earlier era of fully mechanical cameras, 
there were some real beauties. The OM-1 was a breakthrough in many ways, 
but there are others equally deserving of consideration.  The F2 is a 
pinnacle of a kind, and a far more capable macro body than the OM-1 and 
2, with mirror AND aperture lock and all that extra mass to absorb 
vibrations. Leica, Contax, Canon rangefinders and such, although not 
cameras I would want are gorgeous examples of mechanical design and 
execution. There are a lot of great cameras from the pre digital era.

But I can't nail a bird in flight with any of them, while even many 
lowly, early models of AF cameras do it with ease.
> I very very much like AF.  In MOST circumstances it is faster and more 
> accurate than I could ever be.  But "most" is not "all".  There are days when 
> I lament not having a RF spot. There are rare occasions where that mode of 
> focusing would beat any SLR, liveview or AF made.  And, yes, one of those 
> occasions is low-light work.  Of the listed systems above, I would gladly use 
> the Leica, Mamiya 6 (or 7) and even the Yashica as the RF spots are bright 
> enough to be usable.
>   

All a matter of perspective and experience. I've never liked 
rangefinders much, for various reasons, some of which have more to do 
with their focal length and close-up limitations than with using RF 
focus per se. As a practical matter, it seems to me that the better 
digicams focus in light so dim I can hardly see the subject directly. 
With built-in or auxiliary focus aid lights, they can focus in complete 
darkness. The 5D with the aux IR light of the 540EZ can focus at 40 feet 
with no other illumination at all. The loser limght limit for RF is 
better than SLR focusing, but doesn't seem to me to measure up to AF in 
that area.
> Another factor in focusing RF cameras is something that really doesn't happen 
> as much with any other type of camera.  The users of RF cameras almost always 
> "zone focus" then fine-adjust with the RF. They look at the
> subject and as they are bringing the camera to the eye, they've already moved 
> the focus ring to the approximate distance before the eye even is at the 
> viewfinder.  The ergonomics of the camera also play into this as the 
> left-hand plays a much greater roll in holding the camera and lens.
>   
Interesting, and much like the way I use MF cameras, holding lens and 
body and focusing with left hand. In fact, I do something similar with 
AF cameras. If the new subject is at a much different distance than the 
last, I tap the release of focus lock button as the camera bears on the 
subject, but often before I'm actually looking through the viewfinder. 
Getting focus in the "zone" makes that first view much more useful, 
especially in fast mobing situations.

However, I don't see what most of this has to do with the original 
question of relative focus accuracy with the two systems. I guess we'll 
just have to get someone to loan a Leica or two, get together, and run 
some tests.  ;-)

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz